Political campaigns are gambling on a new fundraising strategy: the lottery.

Sweepstakes-style pitches, which have this month come from President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney among others, offer supporters a shot at winning face time with the candidates.

But the contests’ fine print reveal guidelines that favor some donors over others and disqualify others altogether, reflecting just how eager politicians are to woo key voting blocs. Some helpful hints to boost your odds:

If you’re an Obama supporter, fall within an “appropriate range” of political views and interests.

Offer no indication that you rabble-rouse.

And for the love of K Street, don’t register as a lobbyist.

Meanwhile, if you’re pro-Romney, just look and act like the Republican presidential candidate’s “typical supporter.”

While such cooked contests are legal at the national level, some of the same tactics would potentially land state- or local-level candidates in legal peril: Various states bar office seekers from sponsoring any activity that smacks of gambling or closely regulate or altogether prohibit raffles and other games of chance.

No matter for Obama, whose latest e-mail pitch is almost too enticing to ignore: “Make a donation today to be automatically entered for a chance to have dinner with President Obama.”

Obama’s campaign, which has sponsored several such sweepstakes dating back to his first presidential run, is joined this month by Romney, who offered supporters a chance to lunch with him.

“Donate $5 to enter for a chance to grab a bite with Mitt,” the Romney campaign’s offer reads. “We don’t know when, where, or what the food will be – if it’s up to Mitt, it will probably be pizza. But this much is certain: one of you will get to meet Mitt and ask your questions.”

For both Obama and Romney, their come-ons come wrapped in fundraising pitches, complete with online donation forms where prospective participants are prompted to enter their name, address and credit card information.

The entry pages include links to legaldisclaimers stating that one doesn’t technically have to donate to participate or be selected as a winner, and the Obama campaign stressed it adheres to “all laws and regulations both federally and at the state level.”

“Dinner with Barack is a unique opportunity for supporters to share a meal with the president and discuss what they want to see in this campaign,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Katie Hogan said. “This campaign has always been driven by supporters and this is a chance to exhange ideas just as families do across the country at their own dinner tables.”

Luck alone, however, won’t win you a seat next to the leader of the free world: The Obama campaign’s contest rules describe a lengthy contestant vetting process that accounts for numerous factors.

After 50 “potential winners” are selected at random from all “eligible entries,” each person is subject to a background check.

Anyone deemed to pose a security threat or potential “disruption” stands to be eliminated. From there, the campaign will choose three people who “provide for an appropriate range of views, backgrounds, and interests” to win its prize.

Automatically ineligible, according to the rules, are registered federal lobbyists, registered foreign agents and representatives of labor unions, political action committees and federal contractors, among others.

Winners from Obama’s previous contest included two retirees from key battleground states, an Arizona postal worker and a small business owner in Minneapolis.

Romney’s campaign takes a similar tack, randomly selecting 25 potential winners who are also background checked, its contest rules state.

The campaign then hand picks one person who represents “in the sole judgment of sponsor, Mitt Romney’s support across the country.” Romney’s campaign declined to answer questions about the contest.

A raffle offer sent to supporters offers no information on odds or how winners will be selected for a high-profile college football game. Nor does the message provide an option to participate without first laying out cash.

“Just make a contribution of $10 or more before midnight on December 27th and you will be entered in a drawing to receive two tickets to attend the Champs Sports Bowl with me to watch the Seminoles take on the Fighting Irish,” Ms. Demings, whose campaign did not return requests for comment, wrote last week in a message to prospective supporters.

State governments, not the federal government, generally regulate gambling. Federal Election Commission spokeswoman Mary Brandenberger notes that her agency “does not have anything that addresses” candidates sponsoring drawings or promotions that promise a prize.

This means presidential and congressional candidates are free to sponsor drawings off-limits to many gubernatorial or state legislature hopefuls, thanks to some states’ prohibitive anti-gaming laws. And from New York to Texas to Florida, political committees have in recent years run afoul of various state gambling restrictions.

Minnesota’s regulations are particularly strict, as political committees are barred from conducting raffles or similar affairs, said Gary Danger, a compliance officer at the Minnesota Gambling Control Board, who notes that lawmakers years ago decided that “associating gambling and campaigns was something they wanted to separate. It just wasn’t savory.”

“It reveals the problem in the current system where your ability to give is directly related to your ability to access the candidate,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

In 2010, Rick Perry employed a novel strategy for recruiting supporters while running for re-election as Texas governor: For backers who gave his campaign the names of at least 11 registered voters to contact, the Perry campaign entered them in a raffle for various prizes. This included lunch with GOP campaign guru Karl Rove, the Dallas Morning News last year reported.

The more names submitted, the more entries backers could earn.

Now, as a presidential candidate, Perry is apparently swearing off games of chance. His campaign says there are “no plans” for a repeat raffle.

“Each campaign needs to make the decision for themselves, but doing things that smack of gambling in a Republican presidential primary is a risky proposition,” Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan said. “Just ask Mr. Romney about proffering a $10,000 bet.”

Indeed, Romney has lately been in a gambling mood, even if his Mormon faith, which has been a frequent subject of discussion during his presidential run, urges church members to oppose the “legalization and government sponsorship of any form of gambling.”

On Dec. 10, Romney proposed a five-figure wager with Perry during a Republican candidate debate, prompted by a disagreement between the two candidates over Romney’s health care record.

“Rick, I’ll tell you what — 10,000 bucks, $10,000 bet?” Romney said to Perry, offering his hand to shake.